<html>
<body>
I guess it is all in the reading. When you combine the section I
identified (and others) and the "mix and match" process it was
there from my sperspective. Alan<br><br>
At 01/12/2014 01:35 AM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Alan:<br><br>
Strawman 1 was not an "internal to ICANN" proposal. The
part that you quote refers to the IANA Functions Operator remaining
ICANN. That does not make it an internal to ICANN approach.
The current proposal also leaves ICANN as the IANA Functions
Operator. By that measure, the current proposal is just as much
"internal to ICANN."<br><br>
An "internal to ICANN" approach would be one where there was no
external entity (legal or otherwise involved) and oversight,
accountability and all of the other roles currently performed by NTIA are
performed by bodies internal to ICANN.<br><br>
You go on to say that there was "clearly no other entity holding the
contract." This is incorrect. I draw your attention to
the section "Documentation to Replace NTIA Contract," which
reads:<br><br>
<u>Service Level Agreement</u>. The OPRC and ICANN will enter into
a Service Level Agreement for the performance of the technical and
administrative IANA functions. The SLA would run for an initial
term of three years and would be renewed upon the agreement of the OPRC
and the IANA Functions Operator.<br><br>
A "Service Level Agreement" is a form of contract -- so there
is clearly a contract. And it states that the "OPRC and ICANN
will enter into" this contact. So there is clearly an
"other entity" holding the contract.<br><br>
You also state that the OPRC is an "internal committee." This
is also incorrect. The section on legal status of OPRC states
"<u>Legal Status</u>. The OPRC will be a committee rather than
a separate incorporated entity. [The committee may be considered an
“unincorporated association,” and will be domiciled in [California or
the U.S. or Switzerland or some other place] to the extent that the
committee has a legal identity.]." Nowhere does this state or
even imply that the OPRC is an ICANN Committee. Indeed the fact
that there is a discussion of domicile and that OPRC will enter into an
agreement with ICANN can only lead to the conclusion that the OPRC is
external ICANN.<br><br>
I stand by my earlier statement -- I don't think an "internal to
ICANN" proposal was ever put on the table within the group prior to
Frankfurt in any kind of tangible, concrete fashion.<br><br>
Greg<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I have to disagree. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd><font color="#0000FF">Strawman Proposal 1</b></font><br><br>
<dd>4 Status of IANA Functions Operator<br>
</b><br>
<dd>a Division of ICANN</u>. The IANA Functions Operator will
remain a division of ICANN.<br><br>
<dd>b Enhanced Separability</u>. ICANN will maintain the current
separation between ICANN and IANA, and will make the IANA Functions
Operator more easily separable from ICANN, if separation becomes
necessary at some future time.</blockquote><br>
<dd>There was a "Review Committee" but clearly no other entity
holding the contract. Strawman 1 did, nonsensically, posit that the
internal committee could initiate an RFP. for a "new" operator,
but this too confirmed the the "old" operator was
ICANN.<br><br>
<dd>The references to an oversight "mechanism" also alluded to
something other than an external contract-holding
entity.<font color="#888888"><br><br>
<dd>Alan</font><br><br>
<dd>At 30/11/2014 01:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Frankly, I don't think an "internal to ICANN" proposal was
ever put on the table within the group prior to Frankfurt in any kind of
tangible, concrete fashion.</blockquote><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br><br>
Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab<br>
</b><br>
666 Third Avenue ï New York, NY 10017-5621<br>
</b><br>
Direct</b> <a href="??">212-885-9253</a> | Main</b>
<a href="??">212-949-9022</a><br><br>
Fax</b> <a href="??">212-949-9190</a> |</b> Cell
</b><a href="??">917-816-6428</a><br><br>
<a href="mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com">gsshatan@lawabel.com</a><br>
</i></b><br>
ICANN-related:
<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</b><br>
<a href="http://www.lawabel.com/" eudora="autourl">www.lawabel.com</a></b>
</i></blockquote></body>
</html>